The key issue addressed in this judgment pertains to the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta, specifically the Upa Lokayukta, in issuing directions regarding the correction of revenue records and the collection of taxes. The appellants contend that such directives fall outside the purview of the Lokayukta’s authority, as it exceeds its jurisdiction defined under the relevant statutes.
The case, Additional Tahsildaar versus Urmila G. [S.L.P.(C) No.2652 OF 2023] originated with a complaint filed by respondent No. 1 before the Lokayukta, alleging discrepancies in the revenue records pertaining to a piece of land. The complainant sought correction of these records and mutation of the land in the names of the legal heirs of the deceased owner. In response, the Upa Lokayukta issued an order directing the Tehsildar to rectify the mistakes in the revenue records and collect taxes from the complainant. The order mandated compliance within one month, with a reporting deadline set for 16th November 2016.
Aggrieved by the Upa Lokayukta’s order, the appellants filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. They argued that the Lokayukta’s directive was beyond its jurisdiction, as the correction of revenue records and tax collection are tasks assigned to statutory authorities under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, and the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964. The appellants asserted that the Lokayukta’s role is limited to addressing issues of maladministration and does not extend to issuing substantive directives on matters falling under the purview of statutory authorities.
Despite their contentions, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, affirming the validity of the Upa Lokayukta’s order. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging both the orders of the High Court and the Upa Lokayukta.
The appellants’ primary contention before the Supreme Court is that the Upa Lokayukta exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directives regarding the correction of revenue records and tax collection. They argue that such actions encroach upon the authority of statutory bodies established under the relevant statutes. The appellants seek to set aside the orders of both the High Court and the Upa Lokayukta on the grounds of jurisdictional overreach and violation of statutory provisions delineating the respective roles and responsibilities of administrative bodies.
The court’s analysis primarily revolves around the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta in addressing grievances related to rectification of errors in revenue records. The key issues revolve around the interpretation of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, and whether the Lokayukta has the authority to issue positive directions or recommendations only.
The court refers to precedent judgments to establish that the Lokayukta’s jurisdiction is recommendatory rather than authoritative. In Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector, it was established that the Lokayukta can only submit a report with recommendations to the concerned authority. Similarly, in District Collector and Another v. Registrar, Kerala Lokayukta, Legislative Complex, it was reiterated that statutory remedies should be availed before approaching the Lokayukta, especially when there is a hierarchy of remedies provided by relevant statutes.
However, in the present case, the Upa Lokayukta had issued a direction for the correction of revenue records, which the court found to be beyond the Lokayukta’s jurisdiction. Despite the precedents establishing the limited role of the Lokayukta, the Upa Lokayukta had issued a direction for rectification of records, which the court deemed as exceeding its authority.
The court emphasized that the respondent had not availed appropriate remedies against the rejection of the rectification request, nor had they pursued any other appropriate remedy for correction of the records. Consequently, the court concluded that the orders passed by both the High Court and the Upa Lokayukta could not be legally sustained.
As a result, the court set aside the orders and directed the respondent to avail themselves of any appropriate remedy under the relevant statute for the correction of revenue records. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
In summary, the court’s analysis focuses on the limited jurisdiction of the Lokayukta, as established by relevant provisions of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, and precedent judgments. The court ultimately held that the Lokayukta’s direction for rectification of records exceeded its authority and directed the respondent to pursue appropriate remedies under relevant statutes for correction of revenue records.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
